An Indian army camp on the "world's highest battlefield," the Siachen Glacier. Long the site of brutal battles between India and Pakistan, the glacier is now melting as the result of climate change. (Annirudha Mookerjee/Getty Images)

Features » September 4, 2014

Noam Chomsky: The End of History?

The short, strange era of human civilization would appear to be drawing to a close.

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

The likely end of the era of civilization is foreshadowed in a new draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the generally conservative monitor of what is happening to the physical world.

It is not pleasant to contemplate the thoughts that must be passing through the mind of the Owl of Minerva as the dusk falls and she undertakes the task of interpreting the era of human civilization, which may now be approaching its inglorious end.

The era opened almost 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, stretching from the lands of the Tigris and Euphrates, through Phoenicia on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean to the Nile Valley, and from there to Greece and beyond. What is happening in this region provides painful lessons on the depths to which the species can descend.

The land of the Tigris and Euphrates has been the scene of unspeakable horrors in recent years. The George W. Bush-Tony Blair aggression in 2003, which many Iraqis compared to the Mongol invasions of the 13th century, was yet another lethal blow. It destroyed much of what survived the Bill Clinton-driven U.N. sanctions on Iraq, condemned as “genocidal” by the distinguished diplomats Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who administered them before resigning in protest. Halliday and von Sponeck's devastating reports received the usual treatment accorded to unwanted facts.

One dreadful consequence of the U.S.-U.K. invasion is depicted in a New York Times “visual guide to the crisis in Iraq and Syria”: the radical change of Baghdad from mixed neighborhoods in 2003 to today's sectarian enclaves trapped in bitter hatred. The conflicts ignited by the invasion have spread beyond and are now tearing the entire region to shreds.

Much of the Tigris-Euphrates area is in the hands of ISIS and its self-proclaimed Islamic State, a grim caricature of the extremist form of radical Islam that has its home in Saudi Arabia. Patrick Cockburn, a Middle East correspondent for The Independent and one of the best-informed analysts of ISIS, describes it as “a very horrible, in many ways fascist organization, very sectarian, kills anybody who doesn't believe in their particular rigorous brand of Islam.”

Cockburn also points out the contradiction in the Western reaction to the emergence of ISIS: efforts to stem its advance in Iraq along with others to undermine the group's major opponent in Syria, the brutal Bashar Assad regime. Meanwhile a major barrier to the spread of the ISIS plague to Lebanon is Hezbollah, a hated enemy of the U.S. and its Israeli ally. And to complicate the situation further, the U.S. and Iran now share a justified concern about the rise of the Islamic State, as do others in this highly conflicted region.

Egypt has plunged into some of its darkest days under a military dictatorship that continues to receive U.S. support. Egypt's fate was not written in the stars. For centuries, alternative paths have been quite feasible, and not infrequently, a heavy imperial hand has barred the way.

After the renewed horrors of the past few weeks it should be unnecessary to comment on what emanates from Jerusalem, in remote history considered a moral center.

Eighty years ago, Martin Heidegger extolled Nazi Germany as providing the best hope for rescuing the glorious civilization of the Greeks from the barbarians of the East and West. Today, German bankers are crushing Greece under an economic regime designed to maintain their wealth and power.

The likely end of the era of civilization is foreshadowed in a new draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the generally conservative monitor of what is happening to the physical world.

The report concludes that increasing greenhouse gas emissions risk “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” over the coming decades. The world is nearing the temperature when loss of the vast ice sheet over Greenland will be unstoppable. Along with melting Antarctic ice, that could raise sea levels to inundate major cities as well as coastal plains.

The era of civilization coincides closely with the geological epoch of the Holocene, beginning over 11,000 years ago. The previous Pleistocene epoch lasted 2.5 million years. Scientists now suggest that a new epoch began about 250 years ago, the Anthropocene, the period when human activity has had a dramatic impact on the physical world. The rate of change of geological epochs is hard to ignore.

One index of human impact is the extinction of species, now estimated to be at about the same rate as it was 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the Earth. That is the presumed cause for the ending of the age of the dinosaurs, which opened the way for small mammals to proliferate, and ultimately modern humans. Today, it is humans who are the asteroid, condemning much of life to extinction.

The IPCC report reaffirms that the “vast majority” of known fuel reserves must be left in the ground to avert intolerable risks to future generations. Meanwhile the major energy corporations make no secret of their goal of exploiting these reserves and discovering new ones.

A day before its summary of the IPCC conclusions, The New York Times reported that huge Midwestern grain stocks are rotting so that the products of the North Dakota oil boom can be shipped by rail to Asia and Europe.

One of the most feared consequences of anthropogenic global warming is the thawing of permafrost regions. A study in Science magazine warns that “even slightly warmer temperatures [less than anticipated in coming years] could start melting permafrost, which in turn threatens to trigger the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in ice,” with possible “fatal consequences” for the global climate.

Arundhati Roy suggests that the “most appropriate metaphor for the insanity of our times” is the Siachen Glacier, where Indian and Pakistani soldiers have killed each other on the highest battlefield in the world. The glacier is now melting and revealing “thousands of empty artillery shells, empty fuel drums, ice axes, old boots, tents and every other kind of waste that thousands of warring human beings generate” in meaningless conflict. And as the glaciers melt, India and Pakistan face indescribable disaster.

Sad species. Poor Owl.

Support Progressive Journalism

Donations from readers like you make up a full third of our annual income—that's how critical our end-of-year fundraising drives are. If you want to continue to read independent, progressive journalism in 2019 and beyond, we hope you'll consider chipping in whatever you can today.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on U.S. foreign policy. His most recent book is Who Rules the World? from Metropolitan Books.

Looking at things from a different angle what are the corporations and big businesses up to? Well, the fossil fuel companies are of course seeking to play down the threat in plain old and predictable self-interest. But more interesting is what the agricultural and timber interests are up. Both are the very personification of global corporate greed and all that is wrong with our economic systems but both are planning and investing on the assumption of climate change - the timber lobby is advocating planting different and currently non-native species in lieu of future climate change, ditto the agricultural lobby. These companies are hardly Lefty hippies intent on reshaping the world as a green commune. Again, when big business starts to change their policies then something is afoot - you can be certain they have been doing some serious research into the subject. I would love to see the research done by the oil/gas interests as I suspect they are just holding out until they can find alternatives to sustain their position. And, ultimately, whether climate change is man-made or not (or more likely a complex mixture of human and natural forces) then it clearly affects us profoundly. None more so than in the loss of prime agricultural land and water resources - vital to all of us whatever our politics. Only very foolish governments and businesses would not be making contingency plans. As, ever, these huge issues are reduced to the simple binary - believers versus deniers which will get us nowhere. It is our big brains that have allowed us to have civilization in the first place. If we are to have a future at all then we need to keep engaging that big brain. Ignorance is no excuse.

Posted by MacZappa on 2015-01-13 08:50:59

Much is misunderstood by what warming actually means - we will not be growing vineyards in the north of Scotland under baking Mediterranean sunshine. Warming in the Scottish (which is where I live so I'll use that as an example) context manifests itself in more rain and less snow and frost in the winter - thus an overall warming. So, the already famously wet, miserable climate of Scotland is likely to get even more wet and miserable but nevertheless, warmer. If this trend continues then we will see a growth in deep peat bogs/mires, the loss of pine forest and perhaps, an increase in wet broad-leaved woodland. In northwest Europe, the climate has been stable for circa 5000 years. The last major change in climate circa 5-6000 years ago in this part of the world lead to the decline of pine forest which retreated to its current location centered on the central and eastern Highlands - this was the 'march of the oak' as broad-leaved forest replaced the pine as the climate warmed. The simple point I'm making is keep an eye on the plant life as there is no greater measure of changes in long-term climate.

Posted by MacZappa on 2015-01-13 08:15:03

Speaking as a botanist and student of plant communities and vegetation, one thing we can all agree on is that the plant life does not lie. The primary environmental control of vegetation is of course climate. And when vegetation changes then this must be in response to environmental changes, the most important of which is long-term climate trends. If we take tree-lines for example, when tree-lines are moving uphill then only a warming in the climate (especially winter warming) can explain this. When spring flowers are appearing earlier and lasting longer into the autumn then this clearly points to changing trends in long-term winter norms. The explosion of tree diseases in the UK (nearly all of our native tree species are under threat) for example should alert wise heads to some obvious change. Of course we do not understand everything and are only at the edges of our understanding of climate in particular but only the very short sighted would not take account of hard evidence such as changes in the plant life.

Posted by MacZappa on 2015-01-13 07:48:15

Chomsky is a hack and an apologist and cheerleader for the UN. We are not doomed.. Anyone to call the IPCC a "conservative Monitor of the physical world" loses all credibility being that they have been caught over and over exaggerating claims and attending climate summits while being flown in private jets and being moved around in Limousines to and from their 5 star hotels.

IPCC= Fear Porn.

Posted by rewwssfgg on 2015-01-01 22:47:24

Chomsky is a gatekeeper, he acts to keep the left from ever seriously challenging the establishment and shaming those who ask too difficult questions through his fame. His net role in the world is negative.

Posted by Sasha on 2015-01-01 09:58:22

And that pollution is in the name of keeping this archaic market system in place. A hierarchical tyrannical system that has hoards living in squalor. Let's try aiming higher than the gutter.

Posted by Ronnie Neuhauser on 2015-01-01 01:02:03

Let's even forget global warming and just address the pollution and sickness and death stemming from it. You have no idea what you ware talking about. Are you being paid by Chevron or Goldman Sachs or something to spread stupidity?

Posted by Ronnie Neuhauser on 2015-01-01 00:57:00

LOL, you know how long it takes to reproduce the oil we use naturally? LOL...

Posted by Ronnie Neuhauser on 2015-01-01 00:55:52

Yes, and stuff like cancer and pollution, asthma etc. Awesome huh?

Posted by Ronnie Neuhauser on 2015-01-01 00:55:19

Depends what wealth is to you. If it's useless widgets, yes, but if wealth is a healthy ecosystem, healthy for humans and other species well absolutely NOT!

Posted by Ronnie Neuhauser on 2015-01-01 00:53:54

Prosperity to western nations? All while they stole, raped and pillaged the economic south (everyone outside of the west) . The earth is ravaged by hoards of chemicals that people haven't even begun to address or investigate. You're clueless. Your point about not finding contamination by fracking shows how the corporations have bought out the EPA. So your point is indeed false, because experts have already proven there is contamination and severe problems with the gas that escapes into the atmosphere. this is now accepted science. Look it up. In fact I saw a report with a guy who helped create the fracking method and he stated exactly what I stated above.

Posted by Ronnie Neuhauser on 2015-01-01 00:52:27

Have you done as much as Chomsky on the grass roots level to make change? He's quite optimistic, but the reality doesn't look good. You can't ignore important information just to present yourself as an optimist, that's sheer stupidity.

Posted by Ronnie Neuhauser on 2015-01-01 00:47:05

Really? Chomsky in fact is usually incredibly optimistic. He's one of the biggest opponents of capitalism but who created capitalism and who accepts it? Please don't try and state you have no responsibility in this, we are all part of the machine.

Posted by Ronnie Neuhauser on 2015-01-01 00:44:52

We are going the way of Dodo societies before us: "In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." (Civilization is now on Suicide Watch, quoting Arnold J. Toynbee).

Posted by Dredd Blog on 2014-11-12 13:33:40

The Elite perform a Buffering effect ? What ? Elites, taking from those who actually Do the work, and "redistributing the wealth" among the poor, are what CREATE more poor, requiring the elite take more from any middle class in the form of taxes, to allow the poor to make more poor, stimulating the elite to tax any middle class out of existence, (while giving themselves a generous raise) to give to those nonconstructive to civilization, to subsidize the poor so their population can expand Further. The original U.S. constitutution was written to Eliminate the conditions that permit elites and poor to long exist. Liberal philosophy elites CAUSE the fall of civilizations.

Posted by Tom Wittlief on 2014-10-31 10:58:54

Resources are not finite but cyclical. Fossil fuels have given us everything we have, change over to renewables by all means but do it carefully or else we will be starving in the street.Those records are spurious. The only one that matters is Global Warming and that stopped 16 years ago even though India and China didn't even have economies back then !The IPCC says there is no increase in extreme weather.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-22 20:14:21

Lets hope so.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-22 20:03:28

If you really believe what you wrote, you are crazy and no other words will help.

Posted by Ivan Boatwright on 2014-09-21 19:33:45

Radioactive substances are leaking out all over truly ruining the Earth, China is pumping white air pollution into the atmosphere and rubbish is flooding into the oceans along with hideous amounts of heavy metals, concentrated chemicals and other toxins and meanwhile everyone is looking the other way at a supposedly catastrophic CO2 disaster of the most dire proportions that nevertheless is not actually happening. The Capitalist Democracies are heavily regulated and they have clean air and monitored waterways with an army of journalists turning over every rock. For instance the USA EPA has not seen one single case of water contamination due to Fracking.No, the polluters are the Non- Democs with their bastardized Kleptocracies and they outnumber us 2 to 1 at the UN. They fear the spread of democracy but have found a way to destroy the economic base that makes us powerful.

Who is really fiddling while Rome burns?

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-21 05:16:54

Resources are not finite but cyclical.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-21 05:11:29

The Capitalist Democracies are heavily regulated and they have clean air and monitored waterways with an army of journalists turning over every rock. For instance the USA EPA has not seen one single case of water contamination due to Fracking.

You are 40 years behind the times and Industry was small back then by todays standards.

No the polluters are the Non- Democs with their bastardized Kleptocracies and they outnumber us 2 to 1 at the UN. They fear the spread of democracy but have found a way to destroy the economic base that makes us powerful.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-21 05:06:17

Radioactive substances are leaking out all over truly ruining the Earth, China is pumping white air pollution into the atmosphere and rubbish is flooding into the oceans along with hideous amounts of heavy metals, concentrated chemicals and other toxins and meanwhile everyone is looking the other way at a supposedly catastrophic disaster of the most dire proportions that nevertheless is not actually happening. So what is really going on?

Did it ever occur to you that you are being conned?

Who is really fiddling while Rome burns?

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-21 04:47:21

Yes the worst thing about the Failed Theory of Global Warming is that it has misdirected the World and it's funding from the real environmental disasters of deforestation, erosion, pollution, habitat and biodiversity loss. Once great strides were being made but especially in joining remnant habitat to produce sustainable new areas of wilderness...ALL THIS WORK HAS STOPPED.

Yes Global Warming is incorrect because there has been none for over 17 years and "scientists " everywhere are tripping over themselves to explain it so don't bother calling me a liar. Interesting then that %30 of mans CO2 contribution to the atmosphere has occurred since 1997 !. The rate of sea level rise has NOT increased. There is no increase in Hurricanes or Tornadoes and the IPCC's AR5 admits that :

“unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones”

“low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust” “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency” IPCC “AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends”

IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: “The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts” More IPCC Ch2: “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale” More IPCC draft report: Ch2: “there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding”

The only good thing that has come of this is rooftop solar for residences. I hope someday that this will morph into Stand Alone" systems were battery banks are used with converters. The record will show I have been championing this for decades but I don't believe in runaway CO2 warming i'm just not that stupid.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-21 04:37:14

We're gonna run out of gas relatively soon Our systems are barely able to support the stresses of an upwardly spiraling global population. Compared to the overall sentiment when I was a kid in the 70's and 80's, people from all social strata share a bleak and tumultuous future outlook WAY more often now. There's an inherent math that all people do, and it's coming up short. Best o'luck to today's kids, for they are truly, capital-F'ed. Our algal bloom has nearly exhausted itself. Nature's way.

Posted by Diatribal Elder on 2014-09-21 04:22:25

Last man standing - China and Russia

Posted by dirkbruere on 2014-09-19 02:08:39

great scene,..which belies the horror they are headed into.

Posted by Jim Fuge on 2014-09-19 00:44:47

We are doing the Easter Island Two Step.step one. Destroy everything. step two . Pray for a miracle.

2. Global Warming and climate change are interchangeable. You see if the globe does warm….. then look at that…. the climate has changed. How convenient.

3. Climate and weather are two different things BY DEFINITION. It may rain in the sahara desert once in a blue moon. That doesn't change the fact that it is a dry climate.

You say you just want to have a discussion. How? How can we persuade you any differently? If you don't trust the worlds scientific community, then why would you trust anybody? Do you really think that Rush Limbaugh or any other talking head knows more about this than scientists? Keep in mind that most people who speak against climate change have a huge financial incentive to.

The reason we get so worked up is because it is truly a life or death situation, and we have to act now.

And by the way, you can actually see it happening. Look at California. Look at rising sea levels. The evidence is real.

Oil & Gas are finite resources, which were well past their PEAK years ago. It's an industry that is built on Usury of the worst kind (crony capitalist ... bottom lining ... where anything is done to get it). Using the term Global Warming is incorrect - it's Global Climate Change: with the highest high on record year after year for the past 10-15 years for several cities, towns, regions around the world, the same is true with drought & lack of early spring runoffs, and the opposite spectrum of increased massive flooding. In 25 years, good Clean Water will be hard to come by, as well as some of your most popular Red meats & certain foods. You can go ahead and deny that humans don't factor into the equation; but the increased de-forrestation & clear-cutting that has been also employed by our crony capitalist culture HAS had a direct affect on the Earths ability to heal itself. Due to the warming, areas like Siberia, the ocean floor where solid C02 resides, are already starting to release C02 gas. (giant holes in Russia, Ships sinking). We All must be responsible caretakers of the Earth. Using our oil for smart, Clean, Green Technology & Manufacturing while we have the time & resource to do it is best.

Posted by Georgann Putintsev on 2014-09-17 20:16:06

"Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Climate Destabilization"

hahahahahaha

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-17 02:07:48

What do you mean? Noam Chomsky is a noted and published Climate Scientist. His doom and gloom predictions carry real weight.

Posted by Sasha on 2014-09-14 19:21:23

I'd upvote this a thousand times if I could. This piece is hardly realistic, either.

Posted by alternatesteve2 on 2014-09-14 15:26:14

I would like to second that.....a million times over, if I could.

Posted by alternatesteve2 on 2014-09-14 15:23:04

And then we have those like you, who do not learn the truth about a situation, yet feel the need to lecture everyone on your flawed opinion.

Asshole.

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-13 15:21:00

Well, maybe we could if you'd remove your head from that same hole...

Ooops, no we can't...

Once one learns the Truth about a situation it's hard to go back to ignorance...

Posted by chetdude on 2014-09-13 14:36:08

The fatal, suicidal flaw in Evolution's experiment with large-brained bipeds...

Posted by chetdude on 2014-09-13 14:28:26

There was technological progress, curiosity and innovation amongst the species LONG before today's dying 10,000 year experiment with dominator hierarchies...

It's amazing arrogance to assume that humans before this failed experiment began in the Tigris-Euphrates valley led a "pointless existence".

What could be more f*cking "pointless" than working at a McJob to make someone else rich in order to eke out a "living" burning (and eating) petroleum in order to shop for plastic crap at Mal-Wart, watch 500 channels of dreck, root for the Ravens and wait in line for the iPhone 6???

To the alarmists, quit, period. The Ozone Layer that was once a model for alarmists is now under control, yes because of banning the use of certain chemicals, so humans create problems but humans also solve problems. Let's be realistic here as well, walls and walls of wind turbines and solar panels which city dwellers do not see is not an answer to alternative energy. I could list a host of things leftists want but do not improve our way of life but on here it won't do any good. If you want to shout from mountain tops and get things cleaned up go to Russia, China and India, those are the places that are wreaking havoc around the globe, N. America and Europe have done their parts already. Some of the places I mentioned do not even pick up their garbage and a lot is just thrown into rivers, so if you want to shout and protest do so where it needs to be done.

Posted by wanderer314 on 2014-09-13 11:44:13

Most geniuses manage to double as insane maniacs. I grasp what drives Chomsky up the wall. Problem is, he never tells us what he wants.

Posted by Solo712 on 2014-09-13 08:37:27

Chomsky speaks for me on this. I do fear humans could become extinct.

And yet -- the blue whales have come back in even greater numbers than before. People are winning some battles against fracking. The ozone hole is healing itself. And there are some good technological possibilities.

We must never quit fighting, and we must never lose hope -- we must leave a chance for unexpected good developments. That may not be much, but it's a lot better than nothing, and a lot better than just sgiving up. We not only have a beautiful world and all our relations (flora, fauna and more) to protect, but on a more personal (if perhaps self-centered) level, our own grandchildren's future.

********************************************************PS My activism at this point is centered on divestment of institutions from fossil fuels, and on stopping the pipelines (Keystone XL and the Northeast Pipeline), because solving the climate crisis is literally the sine qua non. I'm working with 350MA.org.-- And notice: so far, over 95,000 people have signed Credo's pledge of civil disobedience alone (there are other pledges) in connection with the pipeline.. Finally, finally, this movement is taking off. Better late than never!I urge all to attend the NYC climate march on Sept. 21. TRANSPORTATION: you can sign up for cheap bus transportation from 6 MA places at 350MA.org); from the Cape at tturco@comcast.net; for more, including OTHER AREAS go to http://peoplesclimate.org/tran... or http://peoplesclimate.org/tran.... Also contact buses@peoplesclimate.org for low-income funding. ***********************************************************

Posted by Maroloh on 2014-09-13 01:11:17

That doesn't answer my question. Have you read any verifiable scientific papers that legitimately disproves global warming? If not, than you have nothing to say about this.

Posted by Matt McCoy on 2014-09-12 17:05:22

This looks like an interesting article. I'll read it. Thanks.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-12 16:49:40

Yes, like claims that corporate (or human in general) activity has no effect on the environment and that we should proceed as we please. As to whether PP has got anything to with the burden of proof, I give you this quote from a paper by Taleb (who you should be willing to accept as an expert on the subject) et al: "PP states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (such as general health or the environment), and in the absence of scientiﬁc near-certainty about the safety of the action, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing the action." That is also why it cannot be invoked by both sides, as you claim - because not both sides are proposing potentially risky or even catastrophic behaviour. Since you haven't bothered to check the stuff I recommended, maybe a direct link will help: https://docs.google.com/file/d... It also discusses how to use it in a manner that avoids Pascal's trap.

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-12 15:51:45

this statement refutes nothing in this article. will optimism solve problems? will faith change the future through magic? Do you really think refuting facts, and keeping your head in the sand is helping? If you disagree with the content of this article, REFUTE IT! (and look up the definition of refute while your at it, so more generalized opinions don't crop up). your statement is insulting! facing facts is not giving up! it is the first step to solving existing problems in the first place.

Posted by talos on 2014-09-11 03:06:10

Kudos to you! Even handed, but forcing the valid point!!

Texas, we're looking at you.

Posted by Citizen Austinite on 2014-09-10 19:58:21

Remember the motto: "Kill Your TV" ?

And did you do it? No, you're suicidally addicted to group-think!

Do you like TV shows about murder, rape, theft? Or do you like good, wholesome and educational programming?

Read on, if you still can ...

Americans pay cable companies to deliver falsehoods and propaganda (free speech!) and pay for it through higher prices! TV raises product Cost (commercials aren't free to produce) and passes that on to the consumer as Price. You're paying money to be lied to, and have no problem with it.

People always claim they "care" about a problem, but they rarely claim they "tend" to that problem. And it's much harder to do in groups.

Propaganda starts at home, and YOU are TOO WEAK to stop it.

Posted by Citizen Austinite on 2014-09-10 19:56:50

Actually, the SCIENTISTS who participated in the IPCC's most recent AR-5 working group backed off on pretty much any and every alarmist position around climate change that has been posited over the last ten plus years. Backed off on predictions for warming - significantly; backed off on the severity of ramifications thereof = significantly; admitted that there is not one predictive climate model that has been remotely accurate; admitted that the earth has not seem any warming for almost 18 years (now more but at the release of AR-5 it was about that time frame); admitted that storms have become neither more severe nor more numerous; admitted that there was no significant correlation between climate change and any regional drought experience; and admitted that they have no idea what is going on with the ice at either of the poles. That is what the 2800 page report by the SCIENTISTS said. Then the political representatives charged with writing the 30 page executive summary for policy makers decided to largely ignore those findings, voting instead to write that the probability climate change was man made had increased from 90% to 95%. (And we all know which document was read by journalists and editorial boards at the WaPo, the NYT, the Houston Chronicle, the LA Times, etc. right?) One of the two people charged with writing the scientific report was chagrinned enough to write a letter complaining to the IPCC working group that suggested the Summary for Policy Makers be retitled the Summary FROM Policy Makers. (Robert Stavins of Harvard, the letter is still accessible by Googling his blog. Title is "Is the IPCC Approval Process Broken?)

Posted by Elizabeth_Erwin on 2014-09-10 18:11:37

I'm with you. I more than doubt it. We are closer to 7 1/2 billion and that is a few billion too many. Capitalism dictates ever increasing profits from an ever increasing economy. That can only happen with unlimited supplies. We live in a finite world, but the west lives as if there is no end to any resource. Its ridiculous. Without a sustained living mindset we might as well let the bombs fly. We have destroyed ourselves already.

Posted by Kerra4 on 2014-09-10 16:16:10

OK, I tried and you kept coming back to your silly paper - look, if you want me to take it seriously you have to have experts review it, not me. I just don't care because I think the concept that AGW causes ocean warming has been proven by the facts (i.e. the temperatures have been rising in concert with CO2 levels for the most part), so your 'paper' is like a Zeno's paradox (e.g. the one about the arrow and 1/2 the distance to the target) - just a silly mind exercise that proves nothing but seems exciting to you.

Get the paper into scientific format and submit it for peer review.

Back to the ridicule ...

But you won't because you know you can't play in the world of real science - you can just play silly word games on disqus with people who laugh at you.

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-10 09:00:39

Prof Chomsky could have mentioned the importance of universal access to family planning and modern contraception methods. But, of course, that brings another can of worms: the Catholic church. Nevertheless, the article is great.

Posted by LolaHeavey on 2014-09-10 08:02:35

Can 7 billion or more humans co-habit on Earth sustainably, i.e. without depleting non-renewable resources and without causing ongoing degradation of the environment?

I really doubt it.

Posted by Icarus62 on 2014-09-10 07:13:55

The TAR says the atmosphere is "..... a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system." This is more than 'complex.' At the least it means "unpredictable." I don't see any point to your observation here.

No one has to understand ANY science to make a judgment about temperature trend over the past 150 years. And like I said,the claim that humans have impacted warming requires NO understanding of complexity, only a [vague] understanding of the 'green-house' effect so-called and the awareness that industrialization burns a lot of fuel (makes a lot of ghg).

The "C" in CAGW is no such thing. The actual science of CO2 atmospheric warming leads to AT MOST a 1.1C climate sensitivity. It is contained in Gunnar Myhre's radiative transfer formula for CO2, to wit: F = 5.35 x Ln(ending-Co2/beginning-CO2), which for any doubling works out to 3.71 W/M2. This in turn via Stefan-Boltzmann translates to ~1.1C of warming.

Such actual science is then jiggered with non-science, non-measured ASSUMPTIONs about positive feedbacks that triple the radiative forcing from CO2 alone. This is the basis for a 3C (to 4.5C....or even higher) climate sensitivity. There is no basis in the historical temperature/CO2 record for these positive feedbacks. CAGW is non-science. It is political NONSENSE.

I make ad hominems in John Cook's case because it's appropriate in his case. The typical John Cook acolyte merely links to SKS as his argument, which isn't really even an argument. They don't have the mojo to state their argument directly in their own words. SO ad hominems are appropriate for them as well. Indeed, argument 'by link' is little more than an ad authortitatem argument in itself.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-10 06:23:44

The burden of proof is on the person making the outlandish claims. Moreover the precautionary principal has nothing to do with 'burden of proof.' The precautionary principal is nothing more than a tarted up version of Pascal's Wager.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-10 06:11:00

1. So maybe the best scientists DON'T believe in CAGW -- for the reason you state. They'd have to better than best, because a moment's thought would show the Nobel Committee would NEVER give someone the prize for showing a previous Nobel award showing...well, the opposite. So there's little hope for a Nobel 'disproving CAGW.'2. ok.3. You say a few years. There are many scientific goofball theories that went of for many decades -- homeopathic medicine, eugenics, etc. 4. This is just a non-sequitur. Nothing in my thesis is controversial scientifically. Each of my 5 points is scientific fact. My paper actually cites peer-reviewed sources. 2 of my points are merely the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Moreover, since I'm just assembling basic facts and reaching the obvious conclusion therefrom, this isn't what scientific journals publish. I'm not doing original research. I'm not discovering new facts.You are so blinded by .....well, who knows what..... that you can't follow a simple logical argument. You haven't engaged with it other than to dismiss is for 'not having an abstract' or 'being without content.' I've spelled the outline of my argument out (call that the 'abstract'), cited peer-reviewed papers in support. Your critique of my paper misses the mark. Indeed, you are firing blanks until you challenge one or more of my 5 points. The above attempt at wisdom is illogical and more a product of wishful thinking than anything else.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-10 06:08:17

"Complex" as relating to the system's internal dynamics, not "complicated" as in hard to understand. The C in the ACWG is just a unavoidable consequence of cumulative uncertainty in systems at the edge of chaos. If you don't understand how few feet of water or few degrees of temperature can mean ruin, then that is a different story. Ad hominems are relevant to reveal biases, which is important for the political aspect. But your beef is science, so stick to scientific claims.

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-10 04:06:02

Then you clearly don't understand what burden of proof means.

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-10 03:49:54

You could just say "no", you know...

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-10 03:41:50

I'll try one time to give you some wisdom, then it is back to the ridicule.

1. Most non-scientists don't realize that the best scientists are trying to break the conventional wisdom - that is what they live for and how they win Nobel prizes2. Thus when there is a hypothesis that goes against the conventional wisdom (i.e. the stuff you believe in when it comes to climate science) the scientists are the first to jump on it to see if there is anything to it3. After a few years or decades, if the hypothesis lead nowhere, they are ignored.4. This is why I keep telling you that you are being ignored on these message boards and if you want to do anything but play to your own audience you need to write a paper in regular scientific format, and that paper has to explain why your idea is different from others previously rejected, and why it is correct.

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-09 23:52:09

Capitalism is as much a failure as Communism, and yet because Capitalism has been linked to the all important idea of freedom (which it is not), and to our dying breath we will hold fast to the corrupting concept. Climate change cannot be stopped but we can help each other in the coming decades rethink and change how we use this earth. Co-habitation instead of Imperialistic lording over resources is out only hope of salvation. Realistic. Pragmatic. Not pessimistic.

Posted by Kerra4 on 2014-09-09 23:39:39

well duh! If all these items were frozen earlier into the glacier it means the glacier grew since the fighting started which was not that long ago. Try to keep up.

Posted by Tabludama on 2014-09-09 20:31:40

I was going to say "Great article!" until I realized the author is Noam Chomsky, a Jew - and not one of the good Jews. Thanks for all you've done to help shed light on 9/11 - NOT.

Posted by David Blomstrom on 2014-09-09 20:20:41

The likely end of the era of civilization is foreshadowed in a new draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the generally conservative monitor of what is happening to the physical world.

It is simply astonishing that this sort of propaganda is coming out of the UN's IPCC... quite astonishing.

What is alarmingly astonishing is that the IPCC simply will not accept that a warmer world will be a better world. History tells us so for the last 2000 years. The biggest threat to mankind is a cooling Earth, because of the obvious consequences from such an event happening.

I strongly urge people not to believe this doomsday scenario that has always been promoted by the IPCC and to obtain a second opinion by consulting the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) which considers all the science on climate change, not just that relating to anthropogenic global warming.

Posted by Mervyn on 2014-09-09 19:35:05

Yeah, Chomsky, keep spouting those circular arguments of yours.

Posted by Steve Corner on 2014-09-09 18:21:30

Oltremarino - Depending on your age, I would wager to say that it's very likely that you will see video footage of humans on mars within your lifetime. There are several private endeavors to do just that in the works right now. And I never meant to foster any kind of a sense of "let's just use this planet up because we can always move on to the next one." It's just very in-vogue to exclaim about the end of days if you're an environmental scientist, right now, and I was just pointing out that maybe humans will one day be the only thing standing between an asteroid and the Earth. As long as this is true, the biosphere as a whole does have a very strong benefit gained from Humans having evolved in it. Clearly, you ascribe to the hypothesis that life evolved on earth here, independently of any life that might evolve theoretically in other solar systems or on other planets. I personally hold the idea of panspermia to be a theory that is just as likely as the idea that the first DNA arose from tiny bubbles near geothermal vents. Spores have been demonstrated to be able to theoretically go dormant indefinitely in the vacuum of space, where they could theoretically wait for millions of years until landing in an environment conducive to coming out of dormancy. Paspermia involving intelligent life might take a form that would make it so perhaps lifeforms personally wouldn't need to take the journey to a new solar system at all, but our robotic craft could weather the timescales and distances described, assembling simple organic molecules from inert matter upon arrival that could then evolve on their own. Finally, if we were able to somehow distort the fabric of space-time, we might be able to invent our way into breaking the universal "speed limit" set by the speed of light, and actually go ourselves. But all this "we can't, the difficulties are insurmountable" business is the exact thing told to environmental advocates who ask society to change the way that it's structured and the way that energy is procured and used. I'm sick and tired of hearing old dudes tell us that we can't. It's that box that you have thought yourself into that will keep you from ever really giving it a try, because guess what? We will. We are going to figure out a way, or we (as in, the human race) are going to perish long before we ever need to. Maybe humanity is like a cherry blossom that freezes off the tree, doomed never to bear fruit. It could be that almost all intelligent life that ever evolves anywhere results in the destruction of a biosphere. But if one out of a thousand planets that evolves intelligent life succeeds, and then colonizes another few thousand planets each with the molecules of life, then the circle of life continues. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe life is an annual, and not a perennial. Maybe it needs to evolve in one place, send out seeds near the end of it's life cycle, then die/go dormant. This can be compared to the way that not all the seeds that germinate in a field bear fruit. But those seeds that fail to bear fruit are still necessary in the greater macrocosm of things for the continuance of the evolution of the plant in question. Although the individual corn plant dies in winter, it survives through it's seed. It's really up to us as a society whether we want to be viruses, or flowers. I personally think that it might not be too late for some humans to survive with some semblance of civilization and technology the inevitable coming climate change, if we can try our best to zoom out from our own self-centered myopic viewpoint. I think that personal intelligence can serve an important evolutionary function that protects and serves the entire planet.Your camp would rather see intelligence as an aberration or curse that is doomed to destroy life on the planet. Evolution generally moves in the direction of increased intelligence. I think that this is not haphazard coincidence, but necessary for the continuance of life. If we give up, saying "we can't," we're already defeated. We can. We must. We will, or we will die trying and we will be forgotten in the sands of the vacuum of space.

Posted by Joe on 2014-09-09 18:09:51

Hey, did you by any chance grow up in a place like this...I think very probably:

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”― George Orwell

Posted by lifer1821 on 2014-09-09 16:27:12

The precautionary principal is logically fallacious..... on many levels. It certainly doesn't give any guidance here, as it could be used by both sides.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 16:06:07

Perhaps Mr. Chomsky was attempting to get our attention and rile us up a bit. And maybe we need some riling. Because, yes, we are on the brink of a disaster, and yes, maybe human civilization is coming to its logical conclusion. Maybe this isn't pessimistic, but rather, the cold hard truth. And maybe we should be a little more riled-up about that. Chomsky has always put forward that human nature strives towards a more free and just world, and he has always encouraged radical changes and popular organizing to get there. Perhaps he's looking to us to answer his question: "the End of History?"

No. Not if we get riled up and organize to get us all out of this mess.

Posted by mycle on 2014-09-09 15:44:26

Science fiction has lead us to believe space exploration is inevitable and humans will do as you describe, inhabiting other planets. Reality says that the distances are so vast and the difficulties so insurmountable (here's just one: our immune systems did not evolve on other planets and we would die when exposed to new organisms, plus the micro-organisms in our own bodies could wipe out life on other planets) that we are here to stay. Better to think of Earth as our own small blue dot to nurture as the lifeline to us that it is. The idea of colonizing other planets is a child's fantasy.

Posted by Oltremarino on 2014-09-09 15:08:56

Wow your level of intellectualism is impressive! Keep it up champ!

Posted by lifer1821 on 2014-09-09 14:46:17

I am well-armed. I don't know Cicero. Apparently he doesn't care to defend himself. If I've stated any claim that you want to dispute, spit it out, because otherwise you are just a lying piece of sh*t yourself.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 13:49:16

If a particularly uninformed and inexperienced veterinarian has never seen a pregnant animal before, he might very well think that a pregnant animal is soon to die with an inoperable tumor in her belly. He might see all the signs of pregnancy and interpret that as a cancer. I worry that we are too quick to see humanity as a virus or cancer, when in fact we might be the flowers of the earth, itself. A human beings, we are as far as we know, the only beings yet evolved on this planet who are intelligent enough to potentially terra-form another planet, colonizing it and making it suitable for life. We are the only species that we know of that could potentially be capable of seeding another biosphere. What is the one goal that is common to all life-forms? Survival! Survival via reproduction! We are the ovaries of the earth. One day, if we develop far enough, we will produce a space-ship that is basically a seed of a new earth, capable of transporting us as well as other species to other solar systems, and creating the conditions necessary for a biosphere similar to Earth's biosphere on other planets. If each species can be analogous to a type of cell, and the earth as a whole can be analogous to a giant macro-organism, then we have the potential to become the Earth's arms, reproductive organs, and brain. We are the only species that might one day be capable of fending off an asteroid collision like the type that killed the dinosaurs. If we prevent even a single collision of that magnitude, all damage that we do to the earth will be made up for. The earth evolved us to swat asteroids and reproduce.

Posted by Joe on 2014-09-09 13:27:51

I have quite a different point, to wit, that Cook is prepared to twist the facts to make a political point, and that makes all his work suspect. Ad hominems are sometimes relevant. We don't ordinarily trust as objective purveyors of truth, those who are clearly advocates of a cause as is Cook.AGW is not anything complex at all. Any high school graduate can look at a global temperature chart for the past 150 years and see a warming trend. Most who've only had a high-school level basic science (and many who haven't) can understand the ghg-effect. My beef is with CAGW, which is a scientific fraud.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 13:25:25

You post speaks volumes. You are Alfred E. Newman.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 13:16:14

You are a liar.

Posted by Matthew Janovic on 2014-09-09 12:55:04

He wouldn't have written it if he felt there was no hope whatsoever, folks.

Posted by Matthew Janovic on 2014-09-09 12:53:41

The end of history? As we knew it I'd think It's undeniably "trickling down" fully linear toward that finite bottom of human's most existential questions: Will we as a specie be able to exist as one peacefully without driving ourselves and other live-forms mutually into extinctions through our self-destructive egomaniac greed, perpetual religious wars of revenge and ruthless private corporate endeavors, ever growing monetized ideologic fanaticism and ethnocentric supremacy-attires?

And, can we, as the most evolved animal specie, - human, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the self proclaiming god-given greatest top of the food chain -"change" ourselves before Nature itself violently changes us and everything?

What do you think the outcome will be? I think its an open end game still 50:50 for now. The end of human history is just the necessary begin of another specie's, or civilization's anew crazy history. We choose a bit how this ongoing history story ends, too.

Posted by Anthony Endres on 2014-09-09 12:35:05

You should promptly arm yourself with facts and other weapons of science then, otherwise you are just a warrior to save Cicero's ass. Whose shit has been disposed of before, factually.

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-09 11:57:07

Sorry, but your point was that all SKS articles are fraud because the 97% article by Cook was proved false. He should be ashamed, true, but that doesn't state anything about his other work. That is an ad hominem. I take ACGW to be a logical conclusion stemming from our understanding of complex system dynamics. Google the work on precautionary princple by N. Taleb (GMO debate), same logic applies.And yes, of course it is political, not scientific per se - it deals with how us human should cohabitate and what risk should we be willing to take. That is the point.

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-09 11:50:49

Who cares. Not me. Given that the Oceans are warming, you are like a kitten with a laser pointer, and I can't be bothered to teach somebody science that isn't interested in listening because you think you already know the answers. So sad, you won't participate in real science so you play silly little games. Explain to me once more how pigs bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-09 11:28:20

Soooooooooooooo,Which of my 5 claims are the unscientific ones?

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 11:16:07

Go tell the marines. Har har.

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-09 10:00:00

I'm not the one rejecting a whole body of science out of hand. You are. Now prove you are right to do so.

You are a silly person, thinking your drivel on Disqus means anything - you can't operate in the world of real science so you run and hide an play word games on internet forums instead.

As I said, it is like watching a Youtube cat video - you are the cat - amusing and oblivious.

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-09 09:58:38

I am a warrior in the battle to save the world against non-scientific alarmism. What's it to you?

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 09:46:02

That's of course my point and I indeed stated explicitly that I'm not taking a position on the "97% claim" only that Cook's paper was a non-scientific, travesty and he should be ashamed.Indeed, I insist that there's been some [mild] warming over the industrial age and am prepared to stipulate that human fingerprints are all over that.In brief, I have no beef with GW or even AGW. CAGW is however a non-scientific, alarmist, political position and I'm prepared to fight its advocates tooth and nail.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 09:43:55

So many words. Something must be going on to induce you to write so many words, especially since/if as you say "nobody is listening."There is no 'impenetrable barrier. There is only the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which says that net heat only flows from warmer to cooler objects and not from cooler to warmer objects. If/when the atmosphere is warmer that the oceans, then the atmosphere will warm the oceans. As long as the atmosphere is cooler, the oceans will transmit heat energy to the air. This is not publishable, because its basic science and well-known. Your suggestion that I try publishing is a goofy one for that reason. Likewise, it is well-known that the oceans skin is cooler than the waters below and thus for the same reason cannot transmit heat to the waters below.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 09:40:01

Quoting the guy who debunked Cook's research: "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this."But if you want to go on with your ad hominem attacks, go right ahead. Just don't confuse them with having anything relevant to add to the problem at hand.

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-09 09:35:10

And you are Cicero's lawyer? Or are you merely challenging was*thisjustin's claims and should therefore provide evidence?Stop trolling people, you douche. Get a life.

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-09 09:14:10

Look - do yourself a favor, try to write a paper and submit it for real review - what does it matter if I'm right and you are wrong (which is the case) - nobody is listening.

You claim that there is no link between AGW and the warming of the Oceans, and now you think you have identified an impenetrable barrier between the atmosphere and the Oceans that stop heat flow from air to sea - great - write it up as a real paper and submit it. Engage with any real scientists in a scientific manner (not your disqus mode - you come across as a 'smarter-than-everybody-else-in-your-mind-only-type', just in case you weren't getting the D-K hints) and see if you learn anything.

Science requires an open mind. You, to date, have exhibited no attributes that would make you the great scientist you obviously think you are, but who knows, maybe in a more august environment you might behave more like an adult instead of a petulant teenager. And remember the lesson you learned when you started speculating about who I am (teenage Eastern-European - thanks again for that laugh) - sometimes you are completely wrong.

But you can't do it, so you will continue to try to put something over on me. And I'm just laughing at you the way I laugh at funny cats videos on facebook (hint - the cat gets the humor about as well as you do).

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-09 08:53:35

So, Mr. Smarty-Pants, which of the 5 points in my argument [above] do you challenge? Or if you are a Scared Cat and don't wish to commit, which of my 5 points did "someone" challenge?Your blathering on about ....well, nothing other than Dunning-Kruger, is not only pointless, but hardly disguises that YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOU THE SCIENCE.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 08:43:13

Sure. Because it is the ecologists, not the corporations, that are making the most profit out of the environment, right? Just like those health-obsessed money-grabbers who attacked the benevolent tobacco industry in such a horrible way, they had to found and fund their of scientific institutes to prove to the general public that cigarettes were completely harmless, as has been further established many times since then. Yeah, never mind the corporations, it is those concerned individuals we should worry about. What a dose of common sense that was!

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-09 08:35:42

Somebody already challenged these points - but I just don't care enough about your nonsense to bother. You claim that the Oceans are warming but that it has nothing to do with AGW and offer as proof some silly notion that is pointless. What is your problem? You are one of the silliest Dunning-Kruger types I've had the fun of laughing at - you are so convinced you are smarter than everybody else that it is pointless to do anything but ridicule you. You still have not written, let alone submitted, and are hilariously far away from having published, anything that resembles real science.

Har har. You just can't do it can you. You cannot write a paper that would stand up to real scientific review - your pathetic attempt is ridiculous because you are not proving anything except your dramatic misunderstanding of how the planet is warming.

I can't believe you are still insisting on entertaining me in such a way - you are the clown that never stops!

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-09 08:35:11

The thing not adding up just might be your knowledge of glaciers and climate in general, did you consider that option?

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-09 08:27:44

Just out of curiosity, do you have or plan to have any offspring? If yes, do you consider their problems their own? Will you (I am anticipating your answer to my previous question to be no), when they are born, throw them out in the street saying "hey, your life, your problem; or will you instead work your ass of to give them the best possible chance of living the best life humanly possible? Do you have some desires as to in what kind of a world, what kind of moral or economic situation do you want them to live in; even though you cannot influence those things directly you probably don't want your child to be jobless, homeless, moneyless, harassed or hurt. The changes described above are unthinkable in terms of their impact on the way humans live. If the climate changes sufficiently, if fossil fuels run out, if some key aspect of our fragile economy breaks - our lives (or life as we know it) will never be the same again. That's why the heck. Because you are not a short-sighted moron, but an intelligent being who realises its actions can have unfavourable consequences that due to the nature of the system dynamics can and eventually will kick you right in the face. I am sure your child will teach you more about that. If not, I can hardly think of a dumber way to disappear as a species than its' members shouting "Hey, why the heck not!" Long live freedom.

Posted by Dzinks on 2014-09-09 08:22:19

Thanks for being helpful. I see your point (and now, Vickie's).

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-09 07:40:14

And therefore.....no whistle will blow, and we can all stay in the pool for as long as we wish. I thought that was perfectly clear from the context in which the word was used. Whether it makes any sense or not, or has any basis in reality, is an entirely different thing.

Posted by Bernie Edwards on 2014-09-09 07:23:12

So you don't challenge any of the above points of mine.....which unchallenged lead to the inevitiable conclusion that AGW [CO2 IR] CAN NOT warm the oceans.You can't see this. That is proof enough that you are a mental midget.

Yes the Left will have it's day and it will be a disaster starting with an energy crisis due to stupidity.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-09 03:37:22

You explain how in 2011 Australians became the world wealthiest people with average assets of $232,000.Was it Communism? sarc (for Boone)

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-09 03:34:21

Weather is what happens in the short term (daily, weekly...) Climate is the average of weather over years, decades, centuries, millennia - it describes a pattern. The pattern is changing, eg the changing lengths of some seasons in different parts of the world....the climates of this planet are changing due to global warming. The increase in Global Warming is caused by the larger molecules we are putting into the atmosphere (CO2 - three atoms, CH4 - five atoms...etc) as compared to the vast majority of the atmosphere made up of N2 (two atoms) and O2 (two atoms). The larger chemicals trap extra of the sun's energy in the atmosphere and cause the planet (biosphere) to get hotter.

Posted by Oz kid on 2014-09-09 03:19:53

Lighten up Noam.

Posted by Maggiemay on 2014-09-09 01:11:13

Yup, insults and ignorant opinions.

Goodbye troll

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-08 21:51:38

Simple. Your point was to prove that AGW was not warming the Oceans, and you didn't even come close.

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-08 21:45:10

That's all I have for you.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 20:39:00

Hmm. This deals with the Antarctic. Your statement above involved the Arctic. Is this an example of pole reversal?

Posted by Koyaanisqatsi on 2014-09-08 19:55:56

That's because what you wrote initially about Arctic sea ice was misleading, and, wrong.

"But not hitting a record low doesn't mean that the amount of sea ice is climbing again. We started measuring Arctic sea ice using satellites in 1979, and from one year to another, the amount of ice varies. Sometimes, it's higher than the year before, but the overall trend is still clear: The amount of Arctic sea ice is going down.

On Sept. 13, 2013, the quantity of sea ice was at its lowest point for the year: 1.97 million square miles. This year, on Aug. 17, almost a month before the average low point, sea ice was measured at 2.36 million square miles. The National Snow and Ice Data Center projects that 2014's Arctic sea ice minimum will fall between 1.9 and 2.1 million square miles. Those numbers are all lower than the average minimum amount of ice measured between 1981 and 2010, 2.4 million square miles."

But not hitting a record low doesn't mean that the amount of sea ice is climbing again. We started measuring Arctic sea ice using satellites in 1979, and from one year to another, the amount of ice varies. Sometimes, it's higher than the year before, but the overall trend is still clear: The amount of Arctic sea ice is going down.

On Sept. 13, 2013, the quantity of sea ice was at its lowest point for the year: 1.97 million square miles. This year, on Aug. 17, almost a month before the average low point, sea ice was measured at 2.36 million square miles. The National Snow and Ice Data Center projects that 2014's Arctic sea ice minimum will fall between 1.9 and 2.1 million square miles. Those numbers are all lower than the average minimum amount of ice measured between 1981 and 2010, 2.4 million square miles.

"But not hitting a record low doesn't mean that the amount of sea ice is climbing again. We started measuring Arctic sea ice using satellites in 1979, and from one year to another, the amount of ice varies. Sometimes, it's higher than the year before, but the overall trend is still clear: The amount of Arctic sea ice is going down.

On Sept. 13, 2013, the quantity of sea ice was at its lowest point for the year: 1.97 million square miles. This year, on Aug. 17, almost a month before the average low point, sea ice was measured at 2.36 million square miles. The National Snow and Ice Data Center projects that 2014's Arctic sea ice minimum will fall between 1.9 and 2.1 million square miles. Those numbers are all lower than the average minimum amount of ice measured between 1981 and 2010, 2.4 million square miles"

Posted by Koyaanisqatsi on 2014-09-08 19:47:21

That's all you have, insults and ignorant opinions. Troll away...

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-08 19:36:30

Poseur. Doofus. Charlatan.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 19:31:08

So this is progress. You read it. Which claim do you challenge:a) that CO2 IR is entirely captured within the top 500 microns of the 'ocean skin?'b) that the ocean skin is cooler than the waters below it?c) that therefore CO2 IR cannot transfer any heat to the oceans below the ocean skin?d) that the atmosphere above the oceans is typically cooler than the oceans and therefore cannot transfer any heat to the oceans for the same reason?e) to challenge c or d suggesting cooler objects can transfer heat to warmer objects is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?I'd be very interested to hear which of the above you challenge. But I'm sure that you won't provide a straight answer.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 19:30:20

"So now you withdraw any opposition to Cicero's post." - Nope.

"You could have said that up front and avoided wasting both of our our time." - Just like a conservative, blaming others for one's own behavior. Pathetic yet again.

You must be bored with your meaningless existence. Troll away...

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-08 19:26:53

So now you withdraw any opposition to Cicero's post. You could have said that up front and avoided wasting both of our our time.

"You challenged Cicero's claim above and I called you out." - Not the words I used. And it is obvious you like to insult and put down others, rather than educate others. You are a troll, desperately trying to show your superiority. Pathetic.

"In 20 some odd response to me, you've only once even attempted to back up your assertion, by linking to a chart that shows Cicero to be absolutely right." - Only someone with bad eyesight like yourself could possible make that conclusion.

You must be bored with your meaningless existence. Troll away...

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-08 19:15:29

I read it, but since you obviously didn't understand the subject yourself, it was not exactly clarifying. Amusing, but not clarifying.

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-08 19:10:35

In other words either you didn't read it or didn't understand it.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 19:08:17

You are a know-nothing. I'm not asserting anything that needs proof. You challenged Cicero's claim above and I called you out. In 20 some odd response to me, you've only once even attempted to back up your assertion, by linking to a chart that shows Cicero to be absolutely right.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 19:07:07

Fixed it. Here to troll some more?

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-08 19:06:22

There was no substance to react to.

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-08 19:06:19

You forgot the word "mind" at the end of you post. Brain cloud?

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 19:04:31

You are another doofus, as you comment above reveals. Rather than react to the substance of what I wrote, you whine about its format.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 19:03:50

Are you being sarcastic? It's difficult to tell on the internet.

Posted by Aaron Boone on 2014-09-08 18:39:46

That's the problem. Human civilization has more power now than it ever has. It literally has the power to knock the foundation of its own technology out from under itself in any of dozens of ways. But the individual people who make up this civilization are not one iota wiser than were our pre-industrial forebears. Our leaders continue to make appallingly bad decisions, based on their most primitive desires, and most of the rest of us continue to blindly follow them.

This has already happened numerous times in human history--with the fall of the Roman empire being a fairly recent example. In a series of eminently avoidable social disasters, much of their technology and artistic knowledge was lost for a thousand years. A great deal of it was only rediscovered during the past couple of centuries. What happened to that empire can, and almost certainly will, happen again--this time, on a global scale.

To say that globally, humanity now lives in a dark age is a bit of hyperbole. But the most powerful nation in the world is rapidly slipping into one, as our general education standards slip ever more behind all other developed nations, and the quality of the leadership that we "democratically" elect shows this. And much of the less developed world has yet to acquire a level of education that would enable their citizens to fully participate in a post industrial civilization. The US is the nation that can make or break global civilization for the foreseeable future. Our political and economic leaders can make long term decisions that will benefit civilization, or they can make "expedient" short term choices that will undermine it. For the past several decades, the trend has clearly been toward the latter.

Posted by poisson d'avril on 2014-09-08 18:20:21

Capitalism is because of the greed of man and the power in the hands of idiots.

Posted by Ivan Boatwright on 2014-09-08 18:02:18

That is an idiotic, leftist caricature.

Posted by JTLiuzza on 2014-09-08 14:42:52

I don't think humans as a species would ever let mass extinction happen, I just fear the social and cultural consequences of whatever technocractic solution is engineered to help stop climate change.

Posted by an_star on 2014-09-08 14:18:07

Future people do not exist, and may never exist. If they do, their problems will be their own, as ours are our own. We will be just as dead whether they come to exist or not, and in any case they will never willingly sacrifice a thing for our good. So, hey? What the heck?

Posted by Philo Vaihinger on 2014-09-08 12:32:30

Yes, he is pathetic. A legend and genius in his own.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-08 11:19:44

"This is one of my hobbies --- informing the ignorant and humiliating the climate alarmists. You seem willfully ignorant, so I'll stick to just humiliating you." - You are too funny! You haven't proved a damn thing, nor have you backed up a single statement with any proof. You claim that I am ignorant, but have yet to prove it.

"You're an easy mark, and so not much fun. In all our interactions, you've not made a single attempt to support your response to Cicero" - Nor will I try to prove *anything* to you. Your opinion of me means zero.

"You are right about one thing. You aren't worth much [more] of my time. So I'll give you the last word" - How very kind of you. I bask in the warmth of your kindness.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-08 11:17:35

What has the IPCC been correct about up until now? Nothing.

Posted by Ralph1001 on 2014-09-08 11:12:11

I ran across this 'david russell' guy a few days ago - I also went thru the 'show me a scientific paper' routine with this clown - so he posted his idea of a science paper he had written to the thread - hilarious - it made no sense, wasn't proof read (typos), was in a colloquial format, no references etc. I don't think he has ever even seen a scientific paper :)

Posted by twostepsforward on 2014-09-08 10:12:46

Say whatever you want, you're going to go through this collapse as well within your lifetime (if you're under 50)

Posted by lifer1821 on 2014-09-08 08:52:05

It is a wonder that a person as smart as Dr. Chomsky could be so incredibly blind to the ideological bias of his words. He reminds me of the useful idiots from the cold war who were equally brilliant and equally blind.

Posted by Orellian Tay on 2014-09-08 07:38:21

This is one of my hobbies --- informing the ignorant and humiliating the climate alarmists. You seem willfully ignorant, so I'll stick to just humiliating you.You're an easy mark, and so not much fun. In all our interactions, you've not made a single attempt to support your response to Cicero (except by pointing to a chart which proves one of his points).You are right about one thing. You aren't worth much [more] of my time. So I'll give you the last word (until you actually make a brand-new, pathetic, feckless comment).

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 05:30:51

I am actively involved in global poverty alleviation. It is my conclusion that alleviating poverty is the key to most of human ills -- health, civil society, human rights (esp for women), hunger, and if you like "over-population."

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-08 05:17:28

Capitalism gives prosperity to all and the Western Nations have proved that.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-08 03:37:18

The article is unrealistic. If the melting of the Glacier is revealing shells and detritus of War then the Glacier was smaller in the past. The Middle East is fighting itself because of USA ? Ha! They have been doing that since the succession of Mohammad a thousand years before the USA was known.Scientists are tripping over themselves to explain "The Pause", Global Warming has stopped and certainly was never caused by CO2 anyway but the "Modern Maximum".You are being conned by Choamsky and his ilk. They want the Oil Companies destroyed for political reasons.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-08 03:34:39

Because they are ill.

Posted by Tony Lear on 2014-09-08 03:24:52

"why not go prior to 1979 when arctic ice was like today"

Sure, Sandie, post your source that tells you Arctic ice was like today prior to 1979.

...I'll wait with bated breath.

Posted by CB on 2014-09-08 00:30:28

Overpopulation really is the problem... or at least part of the problem. The more people there are, the more pollution is created.

That said, in most developed nations, the fertility rate is now negative. You are absolutely correct that prosperity leads to this condition. What also leads to a negative fertility rate is female education. It could not be more important to educate women in places like Africa where the population is still rapidly expanding.

Posted by CB on 2014-09-08 00:28:59

Speaking of cherry picking, why not go prior to 1979 when arctic ice was like today.

Posted by sandie on 2014-09-08 00:21:48

So this is what you do in your retirement, huh? Trolling the comment boards.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 23:25:43

Hey Noam......f#u#c#k# off

Posted by dontbeleib dahype on 2014-09-07 23:21:02

Then you need a new prescription for your glasses, because you are blind.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 21:42:00

"We all missed your backing up your challenge." - The royal we? No one else here.

NASA has not endorsed John Cook's paper. Of that I am sure. Prove me wrong. Show me where NASA endorses any paper by John Cook. I never claimed anything about what 97% of scientists believe. All I said was John Cook's paper on that subject was a scientific fraud.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 21:26:14

Anyone who looks at the chart on YOUR suggested site can see the lack of warming at the end.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 21:22:02

We all missed your backing up your challenge. I don't want anything from you.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 21:21:08

Well, I have absolute proof that you are an asshole. And NASA agrees with the 97% stats. I'll listen to NASA before I listen to a brainless old man like yourself.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 21:04:22

What, are you a retired teacher? Or just lazy and stupid? And no, nothing on that site proves Cicero's point, just the opposite.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 20:57:14

'"the rules of the internet."????!!!!! I'm sorry. I thought you were an adult. I've been interacting with a child, I see.' - See, you conservatives have zero sense of humor.

"To the extent I've attacked you, it's only because you can't back up your own challenge to Cicero. I can't imagine why, since you must be filled with all kinds of convincing science from SKS." - I did back up my challenge. Sorry if you missed it. Senior moment on your part?

"I'm still waiting for you to provide the scientific refutation that there's been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years (Cicero says 16, but it's really almost 18)." - Easy enough to do, but why would I worry about what you want?

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 20:55:34

NASA doesn't speak. I don't accept argument 'by link.' Spit it out in your own words. Any idiot can look at that chart and see EXACTLY WHAT CICERO asserted. I suppose it's "any idiot save one" .... YOU.

Bwahahahaha

Thanks for proving Cicero's point. What a dope you are. What colleges granted you the degrees you pretend to have?

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 18:40:28

"the rules of the internet."????!!!!! I'm sorry. I thought you were an adult. I've been interacting with a child, I see. To the extent I've attacked you, it's only because you can't back up your own challenge to Cicero. I can't imagine why, since you must be filled with all kinds of convincing science from SKS. I'm still waiting for you to provide the scientific refutation that there's been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years (Cicero says 16, but it's really almost 18).

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 18:39:43

I'm not the one who challenged Cicero's claims. You were. And all you could dredge up was "a link to SKS." Well, that's not an argument. That's not proof. That's not even an assertion.You want to change the subject to whether SKS is a warmist, advocacy blog. The only reason you want to do this, is that you can't support your original challenge to Cicero. You are an bladder full of hot air.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 18:35:56

You're the one who needs proof --- proof that Cicero was wrong. You can't provide it, can you? And why not? Because you're a doofus, one who takes John Cook seriously.

You forgot the rules of the Internet. You have no evidence, so you attack me. You are pathetic.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 18:21:30

Yet again, you fail the test. Cite your evidenced or STFU. Fact is, you have never cited ant evidence, because you don't have any.

You are a waste.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 18:20:39

Yet again, you mental midget, cite your proof or STFU.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 18:19:20

Banning DDT probably condemned over 20mm humans to death. One of the biggest 'do-gooder' catastrophes of all time.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 16:09:50

Despite your many degrees and your ability to speak many languages, you don't seem able to come up with any refutation of Cicero's assertion. You should demand a refund on all that tuition money.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 16:01:34

I don't argue with dummies. You've challenged Cicero's claims. Now make your point with more than a pathetic reference to charlatan, warmist John Cook..... if you can't. I won't hold my breath. I can smell a poseur way off and you stink.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 15:59:47

All talk on your part. This thread is your response to Cicero. You've blathered on about how he's wrong, arguing 'by link to SKS' -- pretty pathetic for someone with ANY degree. I've challenged you to refute Cicero's assertion in your own words. You've demurred. Wise choice. Doofus.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 15:58:09

Arctic sea ice has steadily declined 67% in the last 34 years:

"Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2013 was 5,500 km³... 67% lower than the maximum in 1979"

A tiny amount of that sea ice returned between 2012 and 2013. Cherry-picking those years and ignoring the rest of the satellite record is common Climate Denier dishonesty.

Posted by CB on 2014-09-07 15:14:34

Again, you make bullshit statements with no proof. You are an idiot. An old idiot. How sad.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 15:04:46

And yet you've shown me nothing that refutes John Cook. This makes you an absolute fool. If you've got proof, you'd show it.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 15:03:51

Sandy Fitzgerald is a political blog writer. She doesn't even qualify as a journalist. And besides all that, read the websites she is using as sources. She doesn't even understand what she is using a source. The rest are completely biased and not scientific. Back to my point. This is rubbish, thanks for wasting my time.

Posted by Rick Arndt on 2014-09-07 14:58:08

And yet, stating it does not make it true. And my multiple degrees, fluency in multiple languages, and great job all demonstrate that I am no mental midget.

You have yet to prove anything except that you are an old asshole.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 14:53:34

You ignore the fact that climate and weather are two different things. And I can find numerous articles disputing your comment that the earth has been cooling:

Siberia is getting warmer. Land ice in the Antarctic is melting. There are parts of this world that now do not even have water.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 14:51:55

Again, pointing to that fraudulent SKS website. No one should bother. John Cook is a fraud.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 14:45:08

You condemn yourself with your own testimony. SKS Reichfuhrer John Cook is a shameless CAGW advocate and his paper on "97% of all scientists....." amounts to scientific fraud. You can't see this. Well, I rest my case.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 14:33:04

Like I said, "You are all hat, and no cattle" --- a mental midget and definitely a denier.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 14:30:57

I've read a number of articles critical of John Cook. Haven't seen one yet that is legitimate. Saying that there is little consensus among German climate scientists in no way delegitimizes John Cook.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 14:24:57

"That's because you an uncritical, light-weight thinker." - Not a chance.

"Prove me wrong by making your case WITHOUT just posting a link to SKS." - As you've posted nothing at all to support your comments, I see no need to do your work for you.

"To deny that there has been a substantial pause in the warming recently makes you, well..... a denier." - A denier of bullshit? There has been no pause.

"Make the case that the temperature records shows statistically significant warming over the past 17 years" - Again, no need. Cite your evidence that I am wrong, then we'll talk.

You managed to live long enough to retire without developing actual thinking skills. Amazing!

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 14:23:28

I think that the whole warming/change issue is overblown and exaggerated. I am not "pro-pollution" or anti-environment, I actually grew up on a horse farm in southern NYS and have a lot of respect for nature and wildlife. I am not a hunter, so don't assume that.

I just think it is very wrong for the most vocal supporters of climate change to take a "my way or you're dead wrong" approach to this. That is not a debate or a discussion. That certainly does not help to explain your position or make people who are open to discussion want to talk about it.

I can make trite comments, like how we can't predict the weather a week from now, but we know exactly what's going to happen in 2050. I can point out that the scientific view on this 40 years ago was that we were going to enter a new ice age (cooling). Then by the late 80's early 90's the greenhouse effect was supposed to cook the planet and cause massive famine. Nowadays, it is true that the warming trend has either stopped, or paused, and we're not sure why (hence the rebranding to climate change).

I accept being not sure, and accept more research is needed. I do not accept the attitude of "It's settled and you're stupid for not agreeing".

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-07 14:07:51

That's because you an uncritical, light-weight thinker.

Prove me wrong by making your case WITHOUT just posting a link to SKS. To deny that there has been a substantial pause in the warming recently makes you, well..... a denier. Make the case that the temperature records shows statistically significant warming over the past 17 years (i.e., refute Cicero's point in your own words). You can't. Because you are a doofus and a poseur.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 14:06:16

Because you state as much? Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 13:56:54

I can't prove that you are an asshole, but I have my suspicions.Regarding John Cook, do your own research. You might start with that scientifically fraudulent paper on "97% of scientists...." that he wrote.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 13:54:46

More than you, obviously.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 13:53:20

Show proof, asshole.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 13:52:07

How so? WTF do you know?

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 13:51:06

And therefore.....what?

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 13:50:32

Then you are a fool.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 13:48:56

Yes, you did write that a while back.

Tell me, given everything, why do you argue against the facts of global warming? Is it that we liberals are worried about it, and therefore it must be a good thing?

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 13:20:35

Do you think the article is a fake?

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-07 13:15:07

As I wrote way way back, nothing I can write will convince you to change your mind.

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-07 13:13:56

I want to see where you are getting your information from. I DON'T want to see more regurgitated internet rubbish either. Peer reviewed scientific articles are the only thing that is acceptable reading material. If you want to take a stance on this matter get informed. Don't just spout off what FOX news or some other uncredible source tells you.

Posted by Rick Arndt on 2014-09-07 12:00:46

Are you kidding me? This is a joke. This isn't scientific research. Have you ever read a peer reviewed paper? Peer reviewed articles are scrutinized be the scientific community to find issues with hypotheses. This is journalistic rubbish.

Posted by Rick Arndt on 2014-09-07 11:56:00

You only discredit yourself by lurching at semantics and quoting out of context. Keep typing though. Your kind is drowning in your own ignorant tunnel vision for a corporate society.

Dont forget, your eagle you use for your profile was nearly extinct due to DDT which was argued had no ill effects at the time. Now we look back and shake our heads at all the unnecessary effects DDT had on the environment and human kind. Carbon emmissions will be looked at the same way.

Posted by Rick Arndt on 2014-09-07 11:51:27

"Your own answers refute your own assertion that 99.9% of scientists agree on this issue" - Nope, I looked. Nothing I wrote contradicts that statement.

"then you yourself argue that there are a lot of unknowns and uncertainties" - In science, it is ALWAYS this way.

'I agree it's not simple and to quote Obama "the science is settled", I put forth that it most certainly is not settled.' - And that is where you are wrong. The science IS settled. The earth is getting hotter, and it is due to humans. If we continue, we will wipe out most species on this planet, including ourselves.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 11:11:24

It clearly states on the website that all info is from peer-reviewed scientific literature. Unless you can show me proof that he is wrong, I'll take his word over yours.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-07 11:07:25

If only we didn't CREATE ISIS, or the many other Frankensteins of the past 50 years, but someone always had monied interests, didn't they?

Posted by johnmack on 2014-09-07 10:44:37

"The glacier is now melting and revealing “thousands of empty artillery shells, empty fuel drums, ice axes, old boots, tents and every other kind of waste that thousands of warring human beings generate”"

How did these items get frozen into the glacier in the first place. Have they been fighting there for hundreds or thousands of years? Something is not adding up.

Posted by Tabludama on 2014-09-07 10:20:56

Your own answers refute your own assertion that 99.9% of scientists agree on this issue, then you yourself argue that there are a lot of unknowns and uncertainties (which I agree exist). I agree it's not simple and to quote Obama "the science is settled", I put forth that it most certainly is not settled.

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-07 10:17:09

John Cook is a charlatan and shamelessly dishonest advocate.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 07:53:32

No serious thinker reads SKS any more. John Cook has proven himself to be a scientific charlatan.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 07:52:39

Overpopulation is not the problem. Nor is it a problem. Poverty is the problem and solving poverty reduces population. Just look at where the population is growing fastest and where growing slowest (or even declining). The common factor is prosperity or the lack of it.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 07:50:12

Without said technology fewer than 1B of the 7B humans on earth would be alive today.

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 07:48:38

Wow. That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that more human prosperity, more longevitiy, more happiness, more technology, more education, more entertainment, more nutrition, more human convenience has been created in the last 100 years or so than in the entire history of mankind beforehand.The world is literally greener now than 200 years ago. The 7B alive today have it much better off than their 1B forebears 150 years ago.How about that?

Posted by david russell on 2014-09-07 07:46:36

I am surprised this demented fart can't connect any of this our little fairy nitwit Bammy...

Posted by BarryWorshipsAllah on 2014-09-07 03:01:50

His dementia has gotten severe. Put Chomsky in your dead pool. This is the year the evil turns to nothing.

Posted by BarryWorshipsAllah on 2014-09-07 02:54:21

Popular capitalist thinking says, though, that as long as extinction won't happen during my lifetime, who cares. I got mine.

Posted by barkway on 2014-09-07 00:52:23

It's not pessimism. It's realism. It's fact. We're close to causing, on our own, another great extinction event. Humans *are* the asteroid. Our technology, our inventions, and our reliance on them is what is causing this catastrophe. However, we, along with our technology and our inventions, are also the only thing that can STOP the asteroid.

Seems Chomsky has finally found his religion and has become an eco-evangelist. Chomsky is much more convincing discussing "end times" than Gore. Good luck in the new position, Noam. I've heard it pays well. At least it did for Gore.

Posted by doseofcommonsense on 2014-09-06 22:32:32

This is not a pleasantsubject, but surely one from which we have averted our gaze for far too long. We humans have so much beauty and creativity inside, yet "thesystem" (economic, political) encourages the worst in us to manifest. Competition, power--base on a patriarchal model that has dominated forcenturies, has brought us to the brink. But, as the I Ching counsels, incrisis lies opportunity. We no longer have the luxury, as a species, tocontinue down the same road that encourages rape, pillage and plunder ofother human beings, as well as of the natural world. Our backs are upagainst the wall, and the only option is a paradigm shift--the creation of anew world that celebrates justice, diversity, compassion, love and theunderstanding that we are all--every life form--connected. All spiritualleaders/prophets (not profits) have pointed toward this path. We canembrace it. We need to embrace it now. Isn't life hard enoughwithout an apocalypse that we have ourselves created?

"And you didn't refute the concept that if 99.9% of scientists agree on global ________" - You are arguing over semantics? Over what words they use?

And climate scientists are NOT saying that the world is cooling.

"how come they can't even agree on...the causes" - Because it is not that simple. And because science is always trying to learn and understand more.

"or even to what extent man-made influences play in the ecology." - Again, these are not simple things to research. Lots of gray areas. Conservatives do not do well with "gray areas", they prefer everything to be black and white. Life does not work that way.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-06 18:08:39

Unless it just gets too toxic or we destroy ourselves in a nuclear holocaust I think the human species will survive.Very few of us were beating this drum of consequences forty years ago but even then Earth Day started and the EPA was formed.We have made real progress and some action has started to show fruit.Phenomenon is not black and white and a mental balance must be kept.It is never all terrible or all fine.One thing for sure falling down on our butts and wailing about it in a nihilistic funk is a waste of time and counterproductive.Let's do what we can and not give up until God really does blow the whistle and we all have to get out of the pool.

Posted by DavidD on 2014-09-06 17:18:56

chomsky never intimated that disasters are imminent, nor inevitable. responsible journalism allows mr. chomsky to share some valuable facts-in this instance, it is fairly understood that by "resisting illegitimate authority" you are simultaneously believing there is hope for mankind-but a declining hope, especially if resistance is muted. noam has always deferred to the activists. his belief in the self-determination of nations, and the respect for all mankind (and other animals and the entire biosphere, for that matter)! Because of Noam concentrating on anthropods, we have to be lucky that he has chosen the modern day homo sapiens to spend most of his waking hours trying to figure out-and share his wisdom, with all of us. Steve

Posted by steve on 2014-09-06 15:20:46

I did post a link to my source, and of course another poster instantly labeled it "corporate media", something to do with petrochemicals for some reason. As I first wrote, no matter what I say won't convince you, you'll discredit the science or claim the scientist or media is biased (since you don't agree something must be up, other than the facts do not support your argument).

And you didn't refute the concept that if 99.9% of scientists agree on global ________, how come they can't even agree on the name (warming, cooling, change, whatever is catchy these days), or the causes, or even to what extent man-made influences play in the ecology.

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-06 15:03:46

"We have to interfere with the supply and demand chain of weapons and war." How??

Posted by Peachy on 2014-09-06 14:37:50

Oh, my. Again, references?

Posted by Peachy on 2014-09-06 14:35:07

"workers and small farmers "...AND MOVEMENTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, ESPECIALLY IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH, BUT IN THE NORTH TOO..."are organizing to end the reign of warmongers, austerity mongers and environment killers."

Posted by Peachy on 2014-09-06 14:33:46

There appear to be (have been) cultures/societies that were not headed down this path. Unfortunately, they have mostly been obliterated.

Example showing that the corporate media have done a good job for their petro-chemical-conglomerate bosses.

Posted by Peachy on 2014-09-06 14:25:13

Where are your sources?

Posted by Peachy on 2014-09-06 14:20:38

Thank you for bringing this up. I saw this somewhere else and couldn't find it (probably because it was FB), and I wanted to bring it up to some people who know what they're talking about. To start, could you please list the references on your claim?

Posted by Peachy on 2014-09-06 14:19:59

Thank you. I've been trying to get some light shone on this statement.

Posted by Peachy on 2014-09-06 14:17:08

hey and climategate, and the sun, and it's weather, etc...(egging on a galloping gish)maybe i should just post a link here to skeptical science, or would that spoil your fun?(gnome. really???)

Posted by Anja van Leeuwen on 2014-09-06 13:54:30

sitting back and waiting for the inevitable gish gallop ;-)

Posted by Anja van Leeuwen on 2014-09-06 13:50:34

i wish it was pessimism. i'm past the point where i try to warn people who don't want to hear. i tried hard over the years, ever since the early days when the club of rome sent out their warning. these days, i just plant green stuff and encourage others to do the same.

Posted by Anja van Leeuwen on 2014-09-06 13:46:09

"Do us a favor, go back outside, dig a hole, and insert your head back into it." - Translation: I have nothing to refute anything you wrote, so I will just insult you instead.

Your ignorance on full display!

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-06 13:40:33

99.9% of scientists agree on global _________ (insert current in vogue term here).

You can't even agree on warming, cooling, or just "change", yet you think 99.9% of the scientific community holds a consensus on this issue.

Do us a favor, go back outside, dig a hole, and insert your head back into it.

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-06 13:34:02

Nice piece but just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Everyone should read Craig Dilworth's Too Smart for our Own Good. The end Chomsky describes is the inevitable result of the human propensity to solve survival problems with technological innovations and then to outgrow their reach. Again and again. The only thing we don't know is whether this is the last turn of the wheel or there are more to come. This cycle is as intrinsic to humans as language, about which Chomsky has made such a point.

Posted by Jim Swindler on 2014-09-06 11:27:52

"I'm guessing that you believe in global warming" - As Neil Degrass Tyson once said, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

"anyway nothing I can write here will convince you to change your mind" - Unless you can show evidence to the contrary that is peer reviewed (by climate scientists), not likely to happen. When 99.9% of climate scientists disagree with you, I'm going to accept their interpretation.

"Any science that refutes your belief will be labeled by your kind as pseudo-science, or incorrect, or even somehow racist and bigoted." - Not if it is peer-reviewed and verifiable.

"Here is a small hint: It's called weather." - Really? You make all those ridiculous statements, and you use "it's called weather" to refute climate change?!? You just demonstrated your ignorance for all to see.

Posted by was*thisjustin on 2014-09-06 11:17:22

While this article makes some very good points. it appears to miss the main problem ... the main reality ... of our civilization today. Overpopulation. The human species, and our home, the wonderful Earth, have never before experienced the situation that we have now created. We are today in the middle of this crisis of too many people, and we are not really even properly facing the issue. Much of this avoidance .. this delusional staring at the ceiling ... is being caused by the various sects of the Bible-based religions, who are generally loathe to even discuss the matter.Those on the left with progressive ideals have an obligation to speak out about this problem, and to look for reasonable solutions. This means taking a fresh look, even if describing this reality runs counter to the various agendas and wants of some of those on the religious left.

Posted by Steve in DC on 2014-09-06 10:52:37

Chomsky is correct to the extent that he sees the potential for more disasters if American capitalist empire builders aren't challenged. His criticism of criminals like the Clintons, the Bushes and Obama are scathing and largely accurate.

Chomsky's criticisms of the corporate hoodlums who are destroying our lives and our environment are also correct. Although BP is going to get a slap on the wrist with an $18 billion dollar fine (roughly equal to a bit more than one year's profits, depending on the year) its a drop in the bucket compared to the vast damage they and their contractors like Halliburton inflicted on workers and the environment. Eleven workers were murdered and the Gulf became an ecological disaster and $18 billion doesn't even begin to cover the damages. In the same year, 2010, the gross negligence of the owners and managers of Massey Energy was the direct and sole cause of the murder of 29 miners at their Upper Big Branch Mine. no one is going to jail for those murders as long as Democrats and Republicans run things in the interest of the rich.

These companies and others like them should be seized and their profits used to compensate their victims.

In both cases the negligence extends to federal and state governments which are led by political prostitutes in the pay of profit gouging managers and owners.

As a direct result of the criminality of polluters and their political prostitutes more and more people are dying or being dislocated by megastorms, firestorms, drought and crop losses globally. In the past little or no blame was attached to those deaths but now is the time to blame the rich, the polluters and their political enablers. They're as much murderers as Bill Clinton, who murdered half a million Iraqi children or the Bushes, who killed over a million Iraqis and Obama, who spread wars of aggression to eastern Europe and to every corner of the Arab and Muslim world.

Where many socialists disagree with Chomsky is his belief that disaster is inevitable. People are rising up here and around the world in open defiance of the rich. Palestine stood firm, the movement to protect the environment from rich polluters is getting serious and workers and small farmers are organizing to end the reign of warmongers, austerity mongers and environment killers.

Posted by Bill_Perdue on 2014-09-06 10:31:55

How does Gnome Chomsky explain the fact that there has been no global warming for either 16 or 25 years, depending on if you measure surface or atmospheric temperatures, and that the Arctic ice cap is actually growing? Remember Al Gore stating in 2007 that the Arctic ice cap would be totally gone by 2014?

Posted by Cicero on 2014-09-06 10:15:10

Capitalism, Communism, Whateverism is not the culprit (although it does make things worse, concentrating resources to a few). We have been a force of nature since the day we learned how to control fire, and this phenomenon started speeding up when we started agriculture and went into quantum speed when we started using fossil fuels. Do you think Easter Islanders or the Mayans had capitalism? Wherever we have gone, we have wreaked havoc on the local ecosystem. The problem this time around is that we are not wreaking havoc on the local ecosystem, but on the whole planetary ecosystem. The same fate awaits us as the past collapses, but this one will be on a global scale. Carpe Diem I say!

Posted by lifer1821 on 2014-09-06 10:14:29

Right, and for that reason i sit at home everyday, real still, and try not to breathe.

Posted by Bob Thomas on 2014-09-06 09:51:01

I agree with Mr. Chomsky we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya until ISIS beheads us.

Posted by Bob Thomas on 2014-09-06 09:49:29

I'm guessing that you believe in global warming, I meant cooling, no wait this week it's climate change, anyway nothing I can write here will convince you to change your mind. Any science that refutes your belief will be labeled by your kind as pseudo-science, or incorrect, or even somehow racist and bigoted.

Here is a small hint: It's called weather.

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-06 08:11:53

Of course,the bible schools and the buch foundation says so!!!As for proof ,plenty like the \wmd of saddam!..you remember this joke?....Man dont close your eyes to the truth only to justify your stupid beliefs against all that is new.Conservatives would say anything as long as it is against the "others"....Stupidity rules.And people who try to put chomsky down are really ill...really...you need therapy...

Posted by foufoutos on 2014-09-06 05:23:34

Any sources to verify this claim?

Posted by Matt McCoy on 2014-09-06 01:59:20

Truth is not always pleasant....light = knowledge ....not a feel good fuzzy feeling !!!Lucifer = the bringer of light

Posted by David Smith on 2014-09-06 01:47:39

I seriously doubt the end of civilization is nigh. Certainly, civilization as we know it will disappear, just as it has disappeared several times in the last 10,000 years. Due to global warming, new deserts will arise and new areas of verdant growth will appear. Future civilization may flourish best north and south of the 40th parallel. It is indeed possible that future civilization will arise from cultures currently considered backwards, like the tribes in the Amazon jungle and areas of darkest Africa. However, as long as human beings survive, they will again achieve civilization. It just might not be a technological civilization.

Posted by OldCowboy on 2014-09-06 00:42:47

Love Chomsky, but Professor Guy McPherson has been banging the human extinction drum for some time now. His information is quite deep and specific about self reinforcing feedback loops, Dragon Burps of Methane being released in Siberia and from the artic ocean. His thesis is that we are in the last stage of an mass extinction event we will not survive due to climate change and destruction of plant and animal habitat. Chomsky is soft pedaling this while catching up. Check out Nature Bats Last, McPhersons blog for actual information.

Posted by Shanster on 2014-09-05 23:07:42

Bring it on, most people are greedy evil scum anyway!

Posted by DeathOn Sunday on 2014-09-05 20:32:25

The complete picture of real world triths in one text.Very well written and coprahensive analysis on world disorder.Thank you mr.Chomsky.

Posted by foufoutos on 2014-09-05 18:36:58

Did Chomsky miss this past week's news? Arctic Ice is growing, not receding.

Nice try but global warming is pure progressive rhetoric designed to keep ultra-liberals focused on things other than their real-world policy failures.

Posted by AmericanCitizen on 2014-09-05 16:27:02

.I am 65 and the world has Always been coming to an end. My Mom was a teen during the second world war and they believed the world was coming to an end. My Grandmother survived \the first world war. I know people who survived Hiroshima and I am sure those people believed the world was coming to an end. No doubt during the Inquisition I have no doubt that the European Pagans were sure the world was coming to an end. .In fact for the entire existence of the earth the "world" has been coming to an "end." Life is fragile, volcanoes happen, foxes and rabbits. There are a lot of rabbits and then the foxes come and get fat and then there are all foxes and no rabbits. .We have an opportunity to evolve ourselves because we can understand the threat and we have the capacity to change. The threat is militarism. Global weapons production and use. Supply and demand. If we stop them we can continue to exist but they are the reason for oil and nuclear and so many thing we need to stop doing. WE HAVE TO STOP SENDING OUR CHILDREN TO WAR!

.We have to interfere with the suppl\y and demand chain of weapons and war. It is very lucrative so the profiteers are loath to give it up but we must or our species will likely not make it but the world will go on. And if not well what difference will it make, as Helen Caldicott said many years ago about nuclear war, "The grief would kill me." That is pretty much true for all of the MAN MADE disasters that plague our world today.

Posted by Gnome Alice on 2014-09-05 14:03:16

You overlook the fact that a 'Dark Ages' period does not entail the existence of a contrasting period of illumination. There wasn't one. We remain essentially the same, and now we're beginning to feel the ramifications of our arrogance.

Posted by Jordan Bates on 2014-09-05 11:40:59

Life on Earth will end in this Three Stage Global Warming (CO2, CH4, H20 vapor). It has inevitability written all over it.

Posted by traveller and settler on 2014-09-05 11:08:51

"Today, it is humans who are the asteroid, condemning much of life to extinction."

That is pure, unadulterated cynicism. Chomsky, so characteristic of his faux-radical, middle-class milieu blames the population at-large for the bringing us to the brink of destruction. Humans are not the asteroid; it is the system of Capitalism, which shifts all wealth and power into the decaying hands of the tiny financial elite that is the asteroid.

Posted by Red Magpie on 2014-09-05 10:26:24

But I'm at a complete loss as to see how things could have been any different. I don't see that another 10,000 years of pointless existence, where the best you could bring to a fight with a lion was your own feet and a pointy stick, would have been a wonderful alternative to taking a shot at a technological civilization that might guarantee you the ability to do something about a strike by a large asteroid, which seems to be how most epochs come to an end on this planet.

Posted by BishopPolk on 2014-09-05 09:26:47

something that shines light on a situation, something that offers insight. This article does that, unfortunately what it sheds light on is not at all an pleasing spectacle

Posted by pk on 2014-09-05 08:04:22

this didn't cheer me up at all, where's the Friday humour?

Posted by pk on 2014-09-05 08:02:25

Problem is, since then we have developed modes of consumption that actually match our appetite.

Posted by bubba booey on 2014-09-05 06:22:11

And people are different today exactly how? When weren't most people concerned exclusively over the next game in the World Series or the outcome of Saturday's chariot races? Even if we burn the planet up in the next 100 years, you still live in a time when you know the age of the universe, and can look at pictures taken from the surface of Mars. So some tiny sliver of the human population do get out there every day and do things that count.

Posted by BishopPolk on 2014-09-05 05:08:53

Some of us, those of us who love people, nature, and the Earth, need help and support in dealing with this inevitability. I am increasingly finding that in the facebook group, Near Term Human Extinction SUPPORT Group. I'm lucky to have lots of real friends too, but NTHE isn't something I can talk about without bursting into tears.

Posted by John 'Compost' Cossham on 2014-09-05 04:31:40

Terrific and devastating, usual for Chomsky!

Posted by G Shah on 2014-09-05 02:30:36

All realities of our time have invariably become pessimistic. There are people with beacons of light out there to warn us and sensitize about the predictable disaster is the only thing that we can be content with. Chomsky had written about this environmental/ planetary churning before also- Destroying the Commons, in Tomdispatch. The impact of all these calamities on human/animal mind/brain should also be studied because 'terrible beauties are being born every other day making us more nihilistic as well as more pessimistic.

Posted by ks on 2014-09-04 22:40:55

Time to stop worrying about it then you old cook. It's party time at the Apocalypse. I'm having a blast.

Posted by Oliver Castañeda on 2014-09-04 22:39:36

BTW the article is not pessimistic but realistic, big difference

Posted by lifer1821 on 2014-09-04 21:59:12

By "beacon of light" I meant it as BEACON = a person or thing that WARNS and LIGHT = TELLS US THE STATE OF WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING...

Posted by lifer1821 on 2014-09-04 21:55:54

How could you call such a nihilistic, deeply pessimistic piece as this 'a beacon of light?'

Posted by Sasha on 2014-09-04 21:23:18

Dark Ages in the sense that all this info on imminent collapse is out there for which anyone with a half a brain can look up and understand the path we are on, and yet most people are concerned with economic growth, what the Kardashians are doing, the next iPhone, etc....

Posted by lifer1821 on 2014-09-04 17:09:28

Terrific, if depressing piece - although it is refreshing to read something so much broader from Prof. Chomsky, covering environmental issues as well as geopolitical ones. The comparison of humans to the asteroid is an apt one, and struck a chord with me even before I read this piece - because I made the same analogy in a recent radio commentary for KVPR Valley Public Radio in California. We are indeed the new asteroid, but may be so much worse than the one which took out the big dinosaurs because we actually claim to have a moral conscience which should give us pause in our destruction.

If anyone is interested in reading/listening to a slightly different perspective on this, here's a link to my essay: